>
> Well, you can get a lot of mileage out of the theory... I think that
> it's not a binary distinction between a model being 'broken' or
> 'unbroken', it's more of a spectrum between things that are easy and
> hard. You can get a lot of mileage out of the RDBMS, and if/when you
> get to a point where things start to look difficult ( "Boy, I don't
> immediately see a way to do this"), check to make sure that you really
> understand the theory, you're "doing it right" -- implementing a good
> solution for the problem, and if that fails, maybe you can fudge
> something other than the database, because the database is doing so
> much else for you.
>
> But if you decide that the view updating problem means that Codd's
> model is broken, therefore should be abandoned, what are you going to
> replace it with?

Vadim and Marshall have looked very hard at lattices and that shows some
promise.
Received on Fri Apr 24 2009 - 16:48:29 CEST